\documentclass[a4papar,12pt]{article}

\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\usepackage{multirow}

\usepackage{fourier}

\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{xcolor}

\begin{document}

\title{Training Report 7}
\author{NowOrNever}
\date{March 26, 2014}
\maketitle

\begin{tabular}{ll}
	\textbf{Problem Set:} & 2012-2013 Petrozavodsk Winter Training Camp, Saratov SU ContestTraining Camp,
					Kyiv + Kharkov NU Contest . \\
	\textbf{URL:}         & \url{http://codeforces.com/gym/100162}. \\
	\textbf{Result:}      & 5/11, Penalty 1007. \\
	\textbf{Rank:}        & 12nd. \\
\end{tabular}

\section{Note}
	This problem set is very hard(tourist's team only pass 7 problems), so we planed to train the ability to deal with hard problem set, but the result is disappointing.
	
	As WQS and CLJ both are in poor state, our team didn't do well.

\section{Pass Logs}
	See \url{http://codeforces.com/gym/100162/standings} for details.

\section{Simple Logs}
	CLJ write F during 0:05-0:35 and get MLE.
	
	WQS write B during 0:35-1:00 and get RE and WA.
	
	CLJ get F AC at 0:40.
	
	WQS get B AC at 1:15.
	
	FQW write C during 1:02-1:20
	
	CLJ write H during 1:20-1:25, RE(array size too small) then AC.
	
	FQW write C during 1:25-1:43,
	
	CLJ write A during 1:44-2:40 and get RE.
	
	FQW get C WA then TLE at 1:55($n\log^2n$ algorithm for $n=10^6$).
	
	CLJ get A RE at 2:53,WA at 3:05,AC finally at 3:15.
	
	WQS write G during 2:40-3:33
	
	WQS work on C during 3:33-3:43
	
	CLJ write K during 3:43-4:00, but he has a very stupid bug.
	
	WQS work on G during 4:00-4:05(his algorithm is too good for this problem, so hard to implement, but this problem is not that hard.).
	
	CLJ debug on K 4:05-4:50 and finally get AC.
	
	FQW tried C in last minutes and get RE(change algorithm to $n\log n$,but get stack overflow).

\section{Our Mistakes}

\subsection{FQW}
	\begin{itemize}
		\item I had a not-so-perfect algorithm on problem C which TLEed.
		After that it take me a long time to realize that
			I can change the \texttt{set} data structure into the
			hashing table, which reduces the complexity from
			$O(n \log^2 n)$ to $O(n \log n)$.
    If I could realize this eailier, things may be better.
    \item I agree with what WQS says.  We have to do something.
	\end{itemize}
\subsection{WQS}
    Nothing to review. We were not training at all. The only effect
    of such a ``training'' is to comfort ourselves that we trained
    or even trained twice this week. I was not able to do anything
    so I gave up my treatment very soon.
\subsection{CLJ}
	\begin{itemize}
		\item This training is just a big tragedy again, first, I fell like dream-walking because I am in very bad state, so my code is full of silly bug.
		\item Also, I find it is very bad that 3 team member are just working inefficiently on their own problem.
		
		\item In this training, WQS tell me an approach to A, but it is hard to implement, I didn't think carefully and write some silly code which full of silly bugs, I fell like next time I should think carefully and talk to WQS more before write codes.
		
		\item In problem K, I have made a very very silly bug(erase elements in a set<int> while iterate through it). Please don't do that again, we can book our silly bugs?
		
		\item When FQW tell me about his algorithm, which is not promised to passed($n\log^2n$ algorithms), I shouldn't just let him write, if that time I tell him we could replace set by hash then we wouldn't waste that amount of time. So when teammates ask my opinion, if I am still in doubt, I should point it out.
	\end{itemize}

\end{document} 